El Caballero Ranch, Inc. A/K/A El Caballero, LLC and Laredo Marine, LLC v. Grace River Ranch, LLC
04-15-00127-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 22, 2015Background
- Grace River Ranch sued El Caballero Ranch, Inc. and Laredo Marine, LLC, claiming private and public easements across defendants’ ranches and sought to build a bridge over a low-water crossing.
- In 2013 the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Grace River as to existence of easements and initially ordered the ruling immediately enforceable; the Fourth Court of Appeals later found that immediate enforcement was an abuse of discretion and struck the "immediately enforceable" language.
- Grace River filed a second partial summary judgment motion (addressing adverse possession defenses). Retired Judge Saxon indicated she would grant that motion and, at a subsequent hearing after she was assigned as a visiting judge, the trial court signed an order that included newly requested injunctive relief directing defendants to provide immediate access.
- Defendants objected to Judge Saxon sitting as a visiting judge (Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.053(b)) and objected that injunctive relief was outside the scope of the proceeding; the trial court overruled those objections and granted the injunctive relief.
- Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the temporary injunction; Grace River moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the injunction is permanent. Defendants responded, arguing the injunction was requested and entered as temporary and therefore appealable under Tex. Gov’t Code § 51.014(a)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injunctive relief is temporary or permanent (jurisdictional) | Grace River: the injunction is permanent, so interlocutory appeal is improper | Defendants: Grace River expressly sought a temporary injunction at the hearing; trial court granted "injunctive relief"—appealable as interlocutory | Appellants argue prior appellate practice and the record show the injunction was sought and presented as temporary; the appellate court previously treated the remedy as interlocutory in related mandamus proceedings |
| Whether the trial court granted relief beyond what was requested | Grace River: sought relief and the court granted it | Defendants: trial court may not grant more relief than requested; relief here was limited to temporary injunctive remedy | Defendants contend Lehmann v. Har–Con requires reversal if more relief granted than requested; they argue the order granted only the requested temporary relief |
| Whether Judge Saxon could preside after retirement as a visiting judge | Grace River: implicitly permitted; court allowed her to sit | Defendants: objected under Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.053(b) that an objected-to visiting judge shall not hear the case | Trial court overruled the objection and proceeded; defendants preserve appellate challenge to the visiting-judge ruling |
| Availability of mandamus vs. interlocutory appeal | Grace River: dismissal motion implies no interlocutory jurisdiction | Defendants: the denial of an earlier mandamus suggests appellate relief via interlocutory appeal was proper | Appellants note the appellate court denied original mandamus relief, implying an adequate remedy by interlocutory appeal was available |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (a judgment granting more relief than a party requested is reversible error; relief cannot exceed what was pleaded/requested)